Timeline for Why are substantial edits rejected when they don't also address all, potential minor, issues?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 19, 2018 at 23:03 | comment | added | Albin | And it seems that Flow understood it anyway because he was able to give an answer. | |
| Jul 19, 2018 at 23:02 | comment | added | Albin | @Ramhound for the same reason people thought the earth is flat. the data was there but it was simply overlooked. In regards to the edit: the title was way to broad in relation to the question which was very specific (that's what was wrong with the title). Flow fixed that - and unless I overlooked s.th. he fixed it correctly. That helps a lot of users who read the title. It makes it possible for them to decide if the question will be relevant and it is worth it to click on it. If the question itself it worded poorly that's a different issue. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 17:18 | comment | added | Run5k | @Albin we appreciate your feedback, but please take a close look at the distribution of up-votes and down-votes within this question (as well as the subsequent answers). Based upon what I have seen, you and Flow are the only people who seem to think these edits are rejected "for the wrong reason." The consensus opinion isn't on your side. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 9:59 | comment | added | Albin | @Ramhound I understand, but what does it matter if 1, 3 or 50 people agree on rejecting the edit if it's for the wrong reason? | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 9:58 | comment | added | Albin | @fixer1234 thanks for the explanation, you say yourself "It's a problem if it's inaccurate". The original title way more inaccurate then it could have been, which Flow proved by his edit. Flows title let's me know exactly if the question/answer is relevant for me the original title didn't. | |
| Jul 16, 2018 at 11:32 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Albin, based on length, virtually the entire question was visible on the main page. The title isn't the question, it's like a headline. A great title can attract readers; otherwise, it just provides orientation. It's a problem if it's inaccurate or misleading, and wastes peoples time or confuses them when they read the question. The original title wasn't a problem, and likely had little impact on readership, but the question is an English mess. Flow's edit changed the title style, and made it more explicit, but that change was largely irrelevant in terms of what would make it a better post. | |
| Jul 16, 2018 at 11:11 | comment | added | Albin | @fixer1234 I don't want to argue about my post, but Flow's post was a substantial improvement due to the reasoning I left in my comment under you're answer. Maybe you could further elaborate on my reasoning, that would be very helpful, thanks! | |
| Jul 16, 2018 at 11:00 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Albin & Flow, I've looked at both linked edits. You both keep referring here to those being good edits that were rejected because other things weren't also fixed. That's not an accurate premise. Neither edit made a substantive improvement in the respective post. I would also have rejected them. An argument could be made that the specific sentences/title were maybe slightly better, but those changes were insignificant relative to the problems in both posts, and weren't what needed fixing. | |
| Jul 16, 2018 at 10:44 | history | edited | Flow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 456 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2018 at 10:38 | comment | added | fixer1234 | It isn't clear why you think the reviewer stats are a problem. Keep in mind that what is being reviewed are the edits of inexperienced users who get no advance guidance on appropriate editing. | |
| Jul 16, 2018 at 10:06 | answer | added | fixer1234 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jul 16, 2018 at 6:44 | comment | added | Flow | Both, as both edits improve the post. | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 19:43 | comment | added | Flow | Why do you believe that it is ok to rejected an edit which improves the post? | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 19:17 | history | edited | Flow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 15, 2018 at 19:17 | comment | added | Flow | @Ramhound I doubt that this is the case, if you look at the data you will find that those users are part of the lower range of the acceptance rate, while there are also reviewers with thousands reviews on the upper end of the acceptance rate. But let's focus on the real question: Why are substantial edits rejected when they don't also address all, potential minor, issues? | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 18:01 | history | edited | Flow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 15, 2018 at 13:02 | comment | added | Flow | Superuser was probably my first SX account ever. I doubt that the 80% are representative regarding the current situation as the time range is over mutliple years. | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 12:56 | comment | added | Run5k |
"I am for example unlikely going to edit again until edits that improve a post are generally accepted." However, within your original post you omitted your own statistics: Flow had 12 edit suggestions approved, and 3 edit suggestions rejected. If that's the case, you feel that approving 80% of your proposed edits still qualifies as a Suggested Edits rejection issue, and you are unlikely to edit again as a result?
|
|
| Jul 15, 2018 at 10:49 | comment | added | Albin | I also thing a lot of rejects happen without enough thinking it over (the group decision doesn't help in such a case). In conclusion there need to be specific goals (and if possible rules) which makes it easy to decide for the editor as well as for the reviewer when a edit is "substantial". This subjective system that is in place now, it's just - sorry for my wording - crap - for all sides! | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 10:40 | comment | added | Albin | I can't I get the message "Suggested edits are not allowed on non-tag-wiki posts on meta sites." - The question should be: Why are substantial edits rejected when they don't also address (all) the minor issues. You should also reason why your examples are substantial. In my view editing the complete title without regards for the rest of the question as in your case is a substantial edit. The reason behind it is, that the title is the most important part of the question because it is used for showing related questions etc. | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 10:15 | comment | added | Flow | I always try to state questions in a neutral emotionless manner. If I didn't achieve this in your opinion, then I'm happy about your suggestions how to improve it. Feel free to suggest an edit. | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 10:05 | comment | added | Albin | your question is a little bit too provocative for my taste, but it still makes a good point and I understand where you're frustration is coming from. I have the same problem. But still I would rephrase it. | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 9:12 | answer | added | MokubaiMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 7:47 | answer | added | Flow | timeline score: -7 | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 7:43 | history | asked | Flow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |